Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Semiotics</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Beginners</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>Daniel</strong> <strong>Chandler</strong><br />
The claim that a literary <strong>for</strong>m reflects the world is simply tautological. If <strong>by</strong> 'the world' we<br />
understand the world we experience, the world differentiated <strong>by</strong> language, then the claim that<br />
realism reflects the world means that realism reflects the world constructed in language. This is<br />
a tautology. If discourses articulate concepts through a system of signs which signify <strong>by</strong> means<br />
of their relationship to each other rather than to entities in the world, and if literature is a<br />
signifying practice, all it can reflect is the order inscribed in particular discourses, not the nature<br />
of the world. (ibid.)<br />
The medium of language comes to acquire the illusion of 'transparency': this feature of the medium<br />
tends to blind its users to the part it plays in constructing their experiential worlds. 'Realistic' texts<br />
reflect a mimetic purpose in representation - seeking to imitate so closely that which they depict that<br />
they may be experienced as virtually identical (and thus unmediated). Obviously, purely verbal<br />
signifiers cannot be mistaken <strong>for</strong> their real world referents. Whilst it is relatively easy <strong>for</strong> us to regard<br />
words as conventional symbols, it is more difficult to recognize the conventionality of images which<br />
resemble their signifieds. Yet even an image is not what it represents - the presence of an image<br />
marks the absence of its referent. The difference between signifier and signified is fundamental.<br />
Nevertheless, when the signifiers are experienced as highly 'realistic' - as in the case of photography<br />
and film - it is particularly easy to slip into regarding them as identical with their signifieds. In contrast<br />
even to realistic painting and drawing, photographs seem far less obviously 'authored' <strong>by</strong> a human<br />
being. Just as 'the word is not the thing' and 'the map is not the territory' nor is a photograph or<br />
television news footage that which it depicts. Yet in the 'commonsense' attitude of everyday life we<br />
routinely treat high modality signifiers in this way. Indeed, many realistic filmic narratives and<br />
documentaries seem to invite this confusion of representation with reality (Nichols 1981, 21). Thus<br />
television is frequently described as a 'window on the world' and we usually assume that 'the camera<br />
never lies'. We know of course that 'the dog in the film can bark but it cannot bite' (Hall 1980, 131)<br />
(though, when 'absorbed', we may 'suspend disbelief' in the context of what we know to be enacted<br />
drama). However, we are frequently inclined to accept 'the evidence of our own eyes' even when<br />
events are mediated <strong>by</strong> the cameras of journalists. Highly 'realistic' representations in any medium<br />
always involve a point-of-view. Representations which claim to be 'real' deny the unavoidable<br />
difference between map and territory. Lewis Carroll satirized the logical consequences of neglecting<br />
the importance of this difference:<br />
'That's another thing we've learned from your Nation,' said Mein Herr, 'map-making. But we've<br />
carried it much further than you. What do you consider the largest map that would be really<br />
useful?'<br />
'About six inches to the mile.'<br />
'Only six inches!' exclaimed Mein Herr. 'We very soon got to six yards to the mile. Then we<br />
tried a hundred yards to the mile. And then came the grandest idea of all! We actually made a<br />
map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile'<br />
'Have you used it much?' I enquired.<br />
'It has never been spread out, yet,' said Mein Herr: 'the farmers objected: they said it would<br />
cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight! So we now use the country itself, as its own